 Jim Hoagland is here with two hats on, I think. One is he is an extremely knowledgeable commentator on matters pertaining to the world at large and has a great amount of experience of the European landscape. But he's also by definition a U.S. citizen who operates essentially out of Washington, D.C. and has a perspective on the world that has been changed quite considerably by Mr. Trump's election and a new focus on issues pertaining to migration in the United States as well. So, Jim, your view. John, I will gladly accept your invitation to put my hand on a very hot stove and see how long I can keep it there. Because that's what discussing migration and populism today is, because I think it's necessary after having heard our friends from Central Europe to ask a subsequent question, which is, is populism an effective answer to the problems of migration and the other aspects of globalization to which we're seeing a backlash, both in Europe and in the United States? Let's think about what globalization has been. It's been the movement of capital, of goods, of ideas, and, yes, of people across frontiers. The migration piece of it, the people part of it since 2011 has been the most controversial part. By some estimates, we have more people on... This is the period since World War II in which there have been more people moving across borders, being displaced, being moved that we've had in recent history. For diverse causes, as you all well know. Causes that include poverty, war, economic advancement, climate change, and increasingly a growing population imbalance that hasn't been noticed very much, but that we need to pay attention to, being driven by demographic forces. This is occurring at the same time as the upheaval in communications and the social media revolution, which occurs at two levels. Through social media, we get to know more about other places, other countries. We get visions of a land where things can be very different for us, and that sets people on the move. But also there is the political effect that we've seen in the United States and we've seen in Europe as well. And that is through social media, people can directly mobilize people. You can turn politics, you can turn government into a kind of a plebiscite, which is one step away, as we've seen in the U.S., an invitation to mob rule. So migration comes to us both as a result and a cause of a fundamental, economic and social change that is occurring but is poorly understood. There's a belief by my president and by other leaders that you can resolve these problems essentially through political means. I think that's a misreading of the nature of the change. And in that singular personality that he has, Donald J. Trump has once again identified a problem that he then makes worse, a lot worse. He has comrades in arms in Europe as well. I want to single out what the next stage of the economic revolution that Donald Trump sees that he's embarked on. A year ago we talked very much about how Mr. Trump defines relations with other countries on the basis of a misunderstanding of trade deficits and how trade actually works. It has become clear quite recently to me that the Trump administration is in fact embarked on an effort to destroy this global supply chain that has fed so much of globalization that has played such an important role in lifting billions of people out of poverty. This is allied to the Trump administration's effort to destroy the WTO. If there's one thing that we could point at, or several things we could point at that would talk about the efficacy of global governance, I would nominate the global supply chain and WTO. But the United States is determined, or at least this administration, is determined to dismantle as much of those planks of global governance as it can. Unfortunately, we're likely to wind up with a much more chaotic world as a result. The migration pressures that we've seen have driven populist victories. But I'm not sure we've seen populism and populist parties come up with solutions to the pressures that created their victories. It's produced an unhealthy change in my country in the kind of debate that makes many people think that Trump follows a divide and rule strategy when it comes to dealing with the American people. And we've heard a description here today a little bit of the tensions that exist in Europe between Western European and Central European countries. And these are divisions that are not good for the EU, and they go into the national fabric in so many countries. I want to touch briefly on the demographic factors that will cast quite a dark shadow in the future unless we take some actions to deal with them. It's well known that population growth in Russia and in Europe has stabilized. That's a euphemistic way of saying that in fact native-born population has been shrinking in Europe because of the fertility rate in Russia largely because of life expectancy declines in an appalling health care situation. Now we have in the United States quite recently a new trend of a drop in fertility rates among native-born Americans. Causes are not quite clear yet, but this could add to the kind of pressures that we're going to see in Europe, particularly coming from Africa. I was interested in doing a little research with a speech to see how controversial a subject population growth is. There are not that many studies on population growth, and they're very carefully written. President Macron of France discovered the same thing recently, discovered how sensitive this subject is when last year he was seen to be wagging his finger by asking African women whether or not, well, he suggested they chose to have seven or eight children rather than to get graduate degrees. This was announced at a minimum as inelegant and at its maximum somewhat racist. But it is a looming reality for Europe that Africa opposes a population bomb because of the combination of poverty. Of the 25 countries with the highest total fertility rates, 23 are in Africa. Africa's population will triple between 2000 and 2050, going from roughly 800 million to roughly 2.4 billion. And most of those people, the large majority, will be living on less than $2 a day. Africa is also urbanizing quite rapidly. So the pressures of today will seem small compared to the pressures of tomorrow unless we begin to take action to prevent the new migration waves that are likely to come, particularly from Africa and the Middle East where strife is still apparent, and Africa. The combined effect of these changes, including the social media, is the political polarization. We need to begin to construct media literacy as a component of civil education to make people understand what they can and cannot trust on social media. But that's just part of the problem that our generations face. One of the pleasures of being a journalist is that you occasionally and quite frequently actually get to talk to very smart people and particularly in politics. And one of the things I've noticed over the years in talking to people like Valerie Giscaldes-Thang, Margaret Thatcher, Giovanni Napolitano, and others, was the emphasis they put to me on how my generation and the generations that came after, are coming after, was essentially untested. We had not lived through the Great Depression. We had not really been involved in World War II and that we hadn't proven ourselves. Well, here is the chance to do that now, I think. This is the generation that will have to reinvent or at least redesign democracy, taking into account the pressures of a world and constant movement now and connected in ways that are both good and bad. So, Sean, I'll conclude there. Thank you, Jim.